HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

avion23

no profile record

comments

avion23
·2 yıl önce·discuss
rt.com - isn't that blatant censorship?

Of course the site is biased, but probably less than BBC.
avion23
·2 yıl önce·discuss
Not OP, but I copy & pasted the same code and asked it to improve. With no-fingers-tip-hack it does something, but much worse results.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
this non-issue happened in a modern landfill near my hometown.

They just used a different grade of material and pocketed the difference.

The chemicals area leaching now into the groundwater. Any researchers reporting on that are sued. Even police is used for intimidation.

Country is Germany.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
Thanks I'll try it out
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
I hope this will be found in history books and some students will point the irony that people are relying on gpt4's arguments about reasoning in a thread where it's proclaimed that said model can't reason
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
I've had it craft legal letters in German. Very good content
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
Sorry I don't have anything un-confidential right now.

Just take any code which is < 3 pages long. Ask it to optimize a function. Or review the code. It should give good results

EDIT: I had some deprecation warnings in python recently, which it quickly fixed. Googled that on a different computer and found https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76689364/how-to-fix-depr...

This is the transcript. Forgive my dumb last question, I didn't understand the code, what it did worked well.

---

User: Please fix the deprecation warning on this code: for i in range(0,3): df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] = df['date'] + pd.DateOffset(years=1)

ChatGPT: The code you've provided updates the 'date' column in a DataFrame df by adding one year to each date that is earlier than June 1, 2023. However, this operation is performed multiple times due to the loop, which is likely not intended and could be the source of inefficiency or unexpected results.

To fix this, you should update the dates in a vectorized way without using a loop. Here's the corrected code:

  import pandas as pd
  # Sample DataFrame creation for demonstration (you should use your own DataFrame 'df')
  # df = pd.DataFrame({'date': pd.to_datetime(['2022-05-01', '2023-07-01', '2024-08-01'])})

  # Correcting the date manipulation
  df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] = df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] + pd.DateOffset(years=1)
  *This code will effectively update all the dates that are earlier than June 1, 2023, by adding one year to them, and it does this in a single pass without a loop. This should also avoid any deprecation warnings and improve the efficiency of your code.*
User: give me the code in one code block. first the old version, then the improved version. Make sure it's executable on its own

ChatGPT: Certainly! Below is the code block with both the original version and the improved version. The improved version eliminates the unnecessary loop and applies the date modification in a more efficient manner.

  import pandas as pd

  # Original code
  df = pd.DataFrame({'date': pd.to_datetime(['2022-05-01', '2023-07-01', '2024-08-01'])})
  for i in range(0,3):
      df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] = df['date'] + pd.DateOffset(years=1)

  # Print the result of the original code
  print("Original Code Result:")
  print(df)

  # Improved code
  df = pd.DataFrame({'date': pd.to_datetime(['2022-05-01', '2023-07-01', '2024-08-01'])})
  df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] = df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] + pd.DateOffset(years=1)

  # Print the result of the improved code
  print("\nImproved Code Result:")
  print(df)
  *This code first runs the original version, prints the result, then runs the improved version, and prints that result for comparison. Note that the DataFrame df is reinitialized before running the improved version to ensure a fair comparison.*

User: is it really the same?

Code: >>> import pandas as pd >>> # Original code >>> df = pd.DataFrame({'date': pd.to_datetime(['2022-05-01', '2023-07-01', '2024-08-01'])}) >>> for i in range(0,3): ... df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] = df['date'] + pd.DateOffset(years=1) ... >>> # Print the result of the original code >>> print("Original Code Result:") Original Code Result: >>> print(df) date 0 2024-05-01 1 2023-07-01 2 2024-08-01 >>> >>> # Improved code >>> df = pd.DataFrame({'date': pd.to_datetime(['2022-05-01', '2023-07-01', '2024-08-01'])}) >>> df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] = df.loc[df['date'] < "2023-06-01", 'date'] + pd.DateOffset(years=1) >>> >>> # Print the result of the improved code >>> print("\nImproved Code Result:") Improved Code Result: >>> print(df) date 0 2023-05-01 1 2023-07-01 2 2024-08-01

ChatGPT: You are correct. The two code versions do not produce the same result. The original code with the loop increments the date by one year for each iteration of the loop, but only for dates before "2023-06-01". This results in multiple increments for dates that are initially before this threshold.

In contrast, the improved code without the loop increments the date by one year only once, making it more efficient and potentially more aligned with what one might expect logically. However, if the intent of the original code was indeed to increment certain dates multiple times, the "improved" version would not be equivalent.

If the goal is to replicate the logic of the original code but without the deprecation warning and with improved efficiency, we need to understand the exact behavior intended with the loop. If the intent was to increment dates before "2023-06-01" by multiple years based on some condition, the improved version should be adjusted accordingly. ---

---
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
It wasn't meant ad hominem, I am really wondering. I feel in a bubble.

I once spent an hour researching the responses on reddit and hackernews. Turned out if these profiles are fake, then they are really good. F.e. age is >5 years, they argue about sport teams and seem really human.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
It can't solve problems it was able to solve before.

It's not able to output complete code.

It always adds comments, even when I ask it not to.

It doesn't follow instructions in general.

In complex issues it has less "memory", that is it's not able to observe multiple constraints at the same time. The limit was much higher before.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
Not OP, but yes.

I've had some chatlogs where people are not able to articulate even one clear sentence. They were fine telling me what they want, but not able to type the same sentence
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
If you really wanted to improve you could show a link to a discussion, then I can give you feedback.

I am switching to teaching / consulting in AI. Chatbots are a part of that. I've reviewed some chatlogs, and some people get abyssimal results, which are entirely explainable and are 100% their fault.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
Not the original poster, but here are some examples:

- Paste a bunch of log code about which I have no idea. Ask to identify and explain the problem.

- Wireshark / dmesg / OpenWrt configuration pasting, ask to fix the problem. For instance, I fixed a Wi-Fi issue in a heterogeneous setup, which turned out to be caused by a stray DHCPv6 server.

- Paste C code, along with an error log, and ask to fix the problem.

- Paste my program and a sample. Ask to extend my program.

- Proofread and format Markdown nicely.

- Paste government letters, asking for a response that includes <what I want>.

- Paste a chat log and obtain documentation.

- Paste a tax declaration, and ask to check for consistency.

- Paste my code and ask for critique.

When discussing versions, people often confuse versions 3.5 and 4. I am always referring to version 4.

Keep in mind that ChatGPT has been seriously and intentionally downgraded since March.

This debate frequently leaves me wondering if I'm encountering a coordinated effort by bots. The examples I listed above come very naturally to me. I can't understand why people don't try to paste whatever they're working on and check the results. If it's too complex, asking it to critique instead of create, because that's easier. It feels as though there's an effort to shape public opinion into viewing these tools as "immature" and suitable only for edge cases.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
This form doesn't save data.

It's not about protecting privacy. Germany saves more data than ever and it's openly spying on it's citizens.

I think it's a mixture of inability and indifference in the government
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
I remember:

- gpt-3.5 175b params

- gpt-4 1800b params
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
for a single it's 2400€ net
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
Sachsen regularily scores top education marks. Source: https://www.insm-bildungsmonitor.de/

Berlin, which is very diverse, is the second lowest. Nordrhein-Westfalen is also very far down.

The votes for the right wing party AFD correlate with education level.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
You are relativating great crimes. You are embracing and supporting euphemistic language. At the level of this crime it's nuances of 'killings'.
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
We were talking about the title "Swedish cities hit by four residential explosions"
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
You are implying that gangs bombing buildings in the city center is 'okay'-ish because people weren't targeted intentionally?

Were the buildings evacuated before?

TBH mentioning gangs would paint a very accurate picture. Because it is gangs, they are fighting for drug control, blackmail, rape and kill.

And to go one step further: It would be even better to name the cultural background of these gangs and that it's a direct consequence of a misdirected immigraction politique
avion23
·3 yıl önce·discuss
I've evaluated some models. The best ones are based on llama-2. Good is for example codeup-llama-2-13b-chat-hf

Uncensored (partially) is nous-hermes-llama2-13b